President Trump just posted this 😂

ziggy

ziggy

Verified User
GmLNDz8XIAEE3fx
 
Yes, there could be a legal basis for challenging the validity of presidential signatures applied with an autopen without the President’s knowledge, depending on the context and applicable laws. The use of an autopen—a machine that mechanically reproduces a signature—raises questions about intent, authorization, and authenticity, which are critical in legal and constitutional frameworks.

In the U.S., the validity of a presidential signature often depends on the purpose it serves. For example:
  1. Statutory Requirements: Certain actions, like signing legislation into law, require the President’s personal involvement under the Constitution (Article I, Section 7). If an autopen signature were used without the President’s explicit knowledge or consent, it could be argued that the act lacks the necessary intent or authority, potentially rendering it invalid. Courts might look at whether the President delegated the task knowingly and whether such delegation is permissible.
  2. Historical Precedent: The use of autopens isn’t new—presidents have used them for decades, often for routine correspondence. In 2011, President Obama famously used an autopen to sign an extension of the Patriot Act while abroad, prompting debate. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion (35 Op. O.L.C. 1) asserting that autopen use was lawful for bill-signing if the President authorized it. However, the key is authorization. Without it, the legal footing weakens significantly.
  3. Contract or Administrative Law: For executive orders, pardons, or other formal acts, if evidence showed the President was unaware of the autopen’s use (e.g., a staffer acted unilaterally), affected parties could challenge the action’s legitimacy, arguing it fails to meet procedural or constitutional standards.
  4. Fraud or Misrepresentation: If an autopen signature were applied without knowledge to deceive others into believing the President acted personally, it could open the door to claims of fraud or ultra vires (acting beyond authority) by subordinates, further undermining the action’s validity.
Courts would likely examine intent, delegation, and context. The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on autopen signatures, but cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803) emphasize that executive acts must align with granted powers. An unauthorized autopen use could be seen as exceeding that scope. Lower courts have also struck down actions when officials overstepped delegated authority—see FDA v. Brown & Williamson (2000) for a parallel.


@Grok
 
House Speaker Mike Johnson has recounted a specific incident that suggests President Biden was unaware of at least one significant executive order he had signed. Johnson described a private meeting with Biden in January 2024 where he questioned the President about an executive order pausing liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to Europe.

Biden initially denied signing the order, which had been enacted just weeks earlier, and seemed genuinely confused about its contents—claiming it was for a study rather than a pause—despite the fact that it was indeed a signed order with immediate effects.

Johnson stated, “It occurred to me he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had 'signed',” and expressed alarm.

If a witness—say, a former Biden Administration official—testified under oath that President Biden’s signature was applied to official documents without his knowledge or understanding, the ramifications could be seismic, legally and politically, though the outcome would hinge on specifics like the document’s nature, evidence quality, and context.

Here’s a breakdown:

Legal Ramifications
  1. Invalidation of Documents
    • Legislation: For bills signed into law (Article I, Section 7), courts could rule the signature invalid if it’s proven Biden didn’t intend or comprehend the act. The 2011 OLC opinion (35 Op. O.L.C. 1) allows autopen use if authorized, but without knowledge, that authorization collapses. Affected laws could be struck down, though courts might hesitate to unravel major legislation retroactively due to reliance interests (e.g., Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 1984, on administrative stability).
    • Executive Orders: These derive from Article II powers. Lack of presidential intent could render them ultra vires (beyond authority), as in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). Challengers could seek injunctions or nullification.
    • Pardons: Article II, Section 2 gives the President broad pardon power, but courts might question a pardon’s validity if Biden was wholly unaware, especially if it’s tied to fraud or abuse (e.g., the Clinton pardon debates).
  2. Criminal Implications
    • Fraud or Forgery: If staff knowingly applied Biden’s signature (e.g., via autopen) without consent, it could violate federal laws like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) or § 471 (forgery). Prosecutors would need evidence of intent to deceive.
    • Conspiracy: Multiple officials colluding to bypass Biden could face conspiracy charges (18 U.S.C. § 371), escalating the scandal.
  3. Judicial Review
    • Courts would likely demand hard proof—documents, logs, or recordings—beyond testimony. Precedents like Marbury v. Madison (1803) emphasize executive acts must align with constitutional authority. A case could reach the Supreme Court, especially if it involves a major law or order.
  4. Constitutional Crisis
    • If systemic unawareness were proven, it might trigger further retrospective debates about Biden’s fitness.
Political Ramifications
  1. Pressure
    • Congress could investigate, with Republicans likely pushing for answers.
  2. Administrative Chaos
    • Agencies relying on affected orders (e.g., EPA rules, LNG export pauses) might halt enforcement, creating policy gridlock. Opponents could exploit this to challenge Biden’s entire agenda.
  3. Public and International Fallout
    • Domestically, it’d fuel narratives of incompetence or a “shadow government,” as hinted in Speaker Johnson’s LNG example.
Practical Considerations
  • Burden of Proof: Testimony alone might not suffice—courts and Congress would want autopen logs, staff directives, or Biden’s own statements. A single witness could be dismissed as disgruntled; multiple, credible ones shift the odds.
  • Scope: If it’s one document, the fallout might be contained. If it’s systemic (e.g., dozens of orders), it’s a full-blown crisis.
  • Legal challenges might outlast a presidency, shifting focus to successors or historical reckoning.
Hypothetical Scenario

If an official testifies that Biden’s signature was autopen-applied to a 2024 climate order without his understanding, and logs show staff bypassed him. Courts could strike the order, DOJ might probe staff, and Congress could launch hearings. If evidence holds, it’s a legal mess—lawsuits pile up, policies stall, and Biden’s legacy takes a hit. If it’s debunked or unproven, it’s just political noise.

In short, the ramifications range from document-specific nullification to a governance crisis, depending on evidence and scale. It’d be a legal and political firestorm either way.


@Grok
 
Robo-Pen-Puppet-President...


But who was at the Robot Control Console?


Xi Jinping?

Obama?

Soros?

The Insane Master Mind, Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD, Maxine Waters?

Pelosi, Schiff and Schumer? (aka The Disciples of Lucifer )

Grand Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei?

The Council Head of the Khazar Mafia?

Klaus Schwab of the WEF? ( who may be the head of the Khazar Mafia! )

The still alive and freed Jeffry Epstein?

The Risen Spirit of Charles Manson, possessing the body of the Doom Goblin Greta Thumberg?

Satan? (aka Jill Biden...)


All of them?


We all want and need to know...


-
 
Last edited:
Kurmugeon said:
Robo-Pen-Puppet-President... But who is at the Robot Control Console? Xi Jinping? Obama? Soros? Grand Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei? The Council Head of the Khazar Mafia? Klaus Schwab of the WEF? ( who may be the head of the Khazar Mafia! ) The still alive and freed Jeffry Epstein? Satan? (aka Jill Biden...) All of them?
Click to expand...


Don't be silly.

What's needed is a Bidenite (or several) willing to flip and testify under oath.

I can think of some very effective means of persuasion that might be applied to induce such testimony.
 
Diogenes said:
Don't be silly.

What's needed is a Bidenite (or several) willing to flip and testify under oath.

I can think of some very effective means of persuasion that might be applied to induce such testimony.
Click to expand...

Do Say, how would you do that?

I think it would take allot to get a Manson-Demon Possessed Doom Goblin Greta to break.

-
 
Last edited:
Trump loves trolling while being forgetful, doesn't he?

Grok, did Trump use autopen?

Yes, Donald Trump has used an autopen during his time in office. While the exact extent of its use is not fully detailed in public records, evidence suggests that autopen signatures were employed for certain documents. For instance, an analysis noted that 25 of Trump’s signatures on the Federal Register from his presidential terms appeared identical, indicating the use of an autopen. Additionally, during his 2016 presidential campaign, items such as "Make America Great Again" hats and copies of his book "The Art of the Deal" sold on his website were signed using an autopen machine, with disclosures about this practice often buried in fine print. This aligns with a broader historical practice among U.S. presidents, including Barack Obama and others, who have used autopen for routine or high-volume signings. However, Trump has publicly criticized the use of autopen by his predecessor, Joe Biden, and in March 2025, he announced restrictions on its use in his administration, limiting it to specific cases like multiple copies of a document after his personal approval. Thus, while Trump did use autopen, he has since taken steps to curtail its application in his administration.
 
Everything is Trump's Fault, .... errr.... except when it is the Demon-Elon's fault of course.


Even if it was the Biden Robo-Pen that started the operation, it is still Trump's Fault!!!


... Umm... Except when it is the Demon-Elon's Fault!

-
 
Diogenes said:
House Speaker Mike Johnson has recounted a specific incident that suggests President Biden was unaware of at least one significant executive order he had signed. Johnson described a private meeting with Biden in January 2024 where he questioned the President about an executive order pausing liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to Europe.

Biden initially denied signing the order, which had been enacted just weeks earlier, and seemed genuinely confused about its contents—claiming it was for a study rather than a pause—despite the fact that it was indeed a signed order with immediate effects.

Johnson stated, “It occurred to me he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had 'signed',” and expressed alarm.

If a witness—say, a former Biden Administration official—testified under oath that President Biden’s signature was applied to official documents without his knowledge or understanding, the ramifications could be seismic, legally and politically, though the outcome would hinge on specifics like the document’s nature, evidence quality, and context.

Here’s a breakdown:

Legal Ramifications
  1. Invalidation of Documents
    • Legislation: For bills signed into law (Article I, Section 7), courts could rule the signature invalid if it’s proven Biden didn’t intend or comprehend the act. The 2011 OLC opinion (35 Op. O.L.C. 1) allows autopen use if authorized, but without knowledge, that authorization collapses. Affected laws could be struck down, though courts might hesitate to unravel major legislation retroactively due to reliance interests (e.g., Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 1984, on administrative stability).
    • Executive Orders: These derive from Article II powers. Lack of presidential intent could render them ultra vires (beyond authority), as in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). Challengers could seek injunctions or nullification.
    • Pardons: Article II, Section 2 gives the President broad pardon power, but courts might question a pardon’s validity if Biden was wholly unaware, especially if it’s tied to fraud or abuse (e.g., the Clinton pardon debates).
  2. Criminal Implications
    • Fraud or Forgery: If staff knowingly applied Biden’s signature (e.g., via autopen) without consent, it could violate federal laws like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) or § 471 (forgery). Prosecutors would need evidence of intent to deceive.
    • Conspiracy: Multiple officials colluding to bypass Biden could face conspiracy charges (18 U.S.C. § 371), escalating the scandal.
  3. Judicial Review
    • Courts would likely demand hard proof—documents, logs, or recordings—beyond testimony. Precedents like Marbury v. Madison (1803) emphasize executive acts must align with constitutional authority. A case could reach the Supreme Court, especially if it involves a major law or order.
  4. Constitutional Crisis
    • If systemic unawareness were proven, it might trigger further retrospective debates about Biden’s fitness.
Political Ramifications
  1. Pressure
    • Congress could investigate, with Republicans likely pushing for answers.
  2. Administrative Chaos
    • Agencies relying on affected orders (e.g., EPA rules, LNG export pauses) might halt enforcement, creating policy gridlock. Opponents could exploit this to challenge Biden’s entire agenda.
  3. Public and International Fallout
    • Domestically, it’d fuel narratives of incompetence or a “shadow government,” as hinted in Speaker Johnson’s LNG example.
Practical Considerations
  • Burden of Proof: Testimony alone might not suffice—courts and Congress would want autopen logs, staff directives, or Biden’s own statements. A single witness could be dismissed as disgruntled; multiple, credible ones shift the odds.
  • Scope: If it’s one document, the fallout might be contained. If it’s systemic (e.g., dozens of orders), it’s a full-blown crisis.
  • Legal challenges might outlast a presidency, shifting focus to successors or historical reckoning.
Hypothetical Scenario

If an official testifies that Biden’s signature was autopen-applied to a 2024 climate order without his understanding, and logs show staff bypassed him. Courts could strike the order, DOJ might probe staff, and Congress could launch hearings. If evidence holds, it’s a legal mess—lawsuits pile up, policies stall, and Biden’s legacy takes a hit. If it’s debunked or unproven, it’s just political noise.

In short, the ramifications range from document-specific nullification to a governance crisis, depending on evidence and scale. It’d be a legal and political firestorm either way.


@Grok
Click to expand...
Credit your sources.
 
Diogenes said:
Yes, there could be a legal basis for challenging the validity of presidential signatures applied with an autopen without the President’s knowledge, depending on the context and applicable laws. The use of an autopen—a machine that mechanically reproduces a signature—raises questions about intent, authorization, and authenticity, which are critical in legal and constitutional frameworks.
Click to expand...
Biden was never President. He was never elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top